Inside the left's little-noticed, relentless, brutally effective campaign to tear down the Republican front-runner in advance of the general election.

Tuesday's installment of the left's crusade to destroy Mitt Romney began like this: an operator chirping, "I'd like to welcome you today to the Mitt Romney Would Destroy Social Security and Medicare Conference Call."

A few moments later, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, was on the line. "Thanks, everybody, for joining the call today," she began. Within minutes, she had accused Romney of "political pandering," supporting "the extreme tea party agenda," and lying to senior citizens, Hispanics and supporters of the space program.

Just another day in the life of the vast left-wing conspiracy.

Practically every day for months, Democrats and their allies have been hammering Romney like this. Unions, party committees at the national and state levels, independent groups such as American Bridge and Americans United for Change, and the Obama campaign itself have undertaken an unprecedented effort to tarnish the front-runner while virtually ignoring the rest of the GOP candidates. And it appears to be working.

Even as he finds increasing success in the Republican primary, negative views of Romney have skyrocketed, particularly among independents, according to recent polls. An ABC News/Washington Post survey released last week, for example, found Romney viewed unfavorably by 49 percent of voters and favorably by just 31 percent. Among independents, just 23 percent viewed Romney favorably, compared to 51 percent who felt that way about President Obama.

One emerging strain of the conventional wisdom holds that it's the harsh attacks on Romney from Newt Gingrich -- and blowback from Romney's own brutally negative campaign -- that's causing this to happen. Democrats have been pushing this line, in fact, arguing that Romney is winning at a steep cost and will limp into the general election bruised beyond repair.

But the left's less-noticed but relentless campaign to tear Romney down surely deserves much of the credit, or blame, as well. In stark contrast to Romney's Republican rivals, the liberal groups have been focused, organized, and speaking directly to independent voters.

In Florida, for example, AFSCME, the public workers union, spent nearly $1 million on a television campaign meant to associate Romney with the state's unpopular Republican governor, Rick Scott, according to TPM. Another union, the Service Employees International Union, teamed up with Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting Obama, to broadcast radio ads targeting the Hispanic community in the state.

On Wednesday, the group announced it was expanding what it said was a "six-figure" ad buy to Nevada -- the Hispanic-heavy swing state that is the site of the next Republican contest on Saturday.

"There's been a lot of chatter about whether the extended primary is doing damage to whoever the nominee is," Bill Burton, the former Obama White House staffer who heads Priorities, argued on yet another Romney-vilifying conference call. (A political reporter could spend all day on these calls, at least until she collapsed from a lethal dose of overheated rhetoric.) "But I would say the damage is already done. If you look at what Mitt Romney has done just in the first three states...his problems are already enormous."

The point, noted the union's secretary-treasurer, Eliseo Medina, is not the primaries but what comes next.

"The key date for us is in November," he said. "What we're doing is educating the community to the positions that this candidate, Mitt Romney, was taking as he sought our votes. Mitt Romney's going to find this little anchor placed around his neck getting heavier and heavier."

Remember when Herman Cain blamed the "Democrat machine" for his campaign-ending sex scandal? There is indeed a left of center machine bent on destroying a single candidate -- but Cain has never been the one they were after. Everywhere Romney goes, the assault awaits him. The DNC partners with state Democratic parties to "welcome" Romney to each state he travels to; on Wednesday, it was the majority leader of the Nevada state senate calling him a "corporate raider."

After Democrats have framed his visit with one of those ubiquitous local-angle conference calls, they often station party officials and members outside events to protest and talk to the media. Here, for example, is a local Minneapolis television station's report on the group of seniors, accompanied by the city's mayor, who held signs saying "Keep Your Mitt(s) Off My Social Security!" outside his event there Wednesday.

The groups also police Romney's speeches for potential contradictions, circulating instantly any damaging information and trumpeting every would-be gaffe. When Romney on Wednesday said he was "not concerned with the very poor," the spin machine sprang into action -- though the media by this point was so well-primed for the latest hyperventilating iteration of "Mitt Romney, Out of Touch Rich Guy" that they hardly needed to.

The Obama campaign is an enthusiastic player of this game, too. On Wednesday, it was circulating a four-page memo from Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter making the argument "Mitt Romney's Negative Campaign is Backfiring." And as the president was releasing new policies to help homeowners, the DNC issued a document explicitly framing Obama's proposals as a rejoinder to Romney's.

Romney's team wears the attacks as a badge of honor -- proof that the opposition views Romney as the most formidable opponent. "The last thing Democrats want is to have to face Mitt Romney in a general election," Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said. "Rather than focusing on job creation and helping the middle class, President Obama and his allies are focused on attacking Mitt Romney."

In the best-case scenario for the Democrats, they would torpedo Romney's candidacy so effectively that even Republicans would sour on him, handing another candidate the nomination instead. But they'll settle for merely cementing negative impressions -- flip-flopper, right-winger, plutocratic elitist -- so that by the time Romney accepts the nomination in August, these perceptions are unalterably baked in.

Is there a potential downside to this strategy? It's possible the Democrats' attacks have already elevated him and bolstered his electability argument by making him the president's de facto opponent. There's also a chance the constant drumbeat could even end up inoculating Romney: Maybe voters will have heard he's a phony so many times by the fall that they'll begin to tune it out.

The Democrats have decided it's worth that risk. And they believe their furious efforts are having an effect.

"I've been happy with some of the criticisms we've been able to land on Romney, because I think it starts the debate," said Rodell Mollineau, president of American Bridge 21st Century, which focuses on tracking and opposition research. He pointed to the group's work highlighting Romney's various inartful comments about money, from "corporations are people" to "I like firing people."

"They're smaller things, but I think after a while we've been able to add them up," Mollineau said. "It all funnels into that narrative that he is the guy that's not on the side of the middle class."

The modern media landscape allows limitless venues for this type of information, from social media to a novel crops of online news outlets and the partisan blogosphere, he noted. "You can start to shape the narrative earlier, so when you do get to the general election, those narratives are already there," he said.

And Mollineau was unapologetic about the focus on Romney. "They all have their flaws," he said of the other GOP candidates. "But when you're the front-runner, you're going to get more scrutiny. You just are."

About the Author

Most Popular

The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

The strangest part about the continued personality cult of Robert E. Lee is how few of the qualities his admirers profess to see in him he actually possessed.

Memorial Day has the tendency to conjure up old arguments about the Civil War. That’s understandable; it was created to mourn the dead of a war in which the Union was nearly destroyed, when half the country rose up in rebellion in defense of slavery. This year, the removal of Lee’s statue in New Orleans has inspired a new round of commentary about Lee, not to mention protests on his behalf by white supremacists.

The myth of Lee goes something like this: He was a brilliant strategist and devoted Christian man who abhorred slavery and labored tirelessly after the war to bring the country back together.

On August 21, the “moon” will pass between the Earth and the sun, obscuring the light of the latter. The government agency NASA says this will result in “one of nature’s most awe-inspiring sights.” The astronomers there claim to have calculated down to the minute exactly when and where this will happen, and for how long. They have reportedly known about this eclipse for years, just by virtue of some sort of complex math.

This seems extremely unlikely. I can’t even find these eclipse calculations on their website to check them for myself.

Meanwhile the scientists tell us we can’t look at it without special glasses because “looking directly at the sun is unsafe.”

Just seven months into his presidency, Trump appears to have achieved a status usually reserved for the final months of a term.

In many ways, the Trump presidency never got off the ground: The president’s legislative agenda is going nowhere, his relations with foreign leaders are frayed, and his approval rating with the American people never enjoyed the honeymoon period most newly elected presidents do. Pundits who are sympathetic toward, or even neutral on, the president keep hoping that the next personnel move—the appointment of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, say, or the long-rumored-but-never-delivered departure of Steve Bannon—will finally get the White House in gear.

But what if they, and many other people, are thinking about it wrong? Maybe the reality is not that the Trump presidency has never gotten started. It’s that he’s already reached his lame-duck period. For most presidents, that comes in the last few months of a term. For Trump, it appears to have arrived early, just a few months into his term. The president did always brag that he was a fast learner.

An analysis of Stormfront forums shows a sometimes sophisticated understanding of the limits of ancestry tests.

The white-nationalist forum Stormfront hosts discussions on a wide range of topics, from politics to guns to The Lord of the Rings. And of particular and enduring interest: genetic ancestry tests. For white nationalists, DNA tests are a way to prove their racial purity. Of course, their results don’t always come back that way. And how white nationalists try to explain away non-European ancestry is rather illuminating of their beliefs.

Two years ago—before Donald Trump was elected president, before white nationalism had become central to the political conversation—Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan, sociologists then at the University of California, Los Angeles, set out to study Stormfront forum posts about genetic ancestry tests. They presented their study at the American Sociological Association meeting this Monday. (A preprint of the paper is now online.) After the events in Charlottesville this week, their research struck a particular chord with the audience.

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. “We go to the mall,” she said. “Do your parents drop you off?,” I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. “No—I go with my family,” she replied. “We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes.”

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”

Antifa’s activists say they’re battling burgeoning authoritarianism on the American right. Are they fueling it instead?

Since 1907, Portland, Oregon, has hosted an annual Rose Festival. Since 2007, the festival had included a parade down 82nd Avenue. Since 2013, the Republican Party of Multnomah County, which includes Portland, had taken part. This April, all of that changed.

In the days leading up to the planned parade, a group called the Direct Action Alliance declared, “Fascists plan to march through the streets,” and warned, “Nazis will not march through Portland unopposed.” The alliance said it didn’t object to the Multnomah GOP itself, but to “fascists” who planned to infiltrate its ranks. Yet it also denounced marchers with “Trump flags” and “red maga hats” who could “normalize support for an orange man who bragged about sexually harassing women and who is waging a war of hate, racism and prejudice.” A second group, Oregon Students Empowered, created a Facebook page called “Shut down fascism! No nazis in Portland!”

Anti-Semitic logic fueled the violence over the weekend, no matter what the president says.

The “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville was ostensibly about protecting a statue of Robert E. Lee. It was about asserting the legitimacy of “white culture” and white supremacy, and defending the legacy of the Confederacy.

So why did the demonstrators chant anti-Semitic lines like “Jews will not replace us”?

The demonstration was suffused with anti-black racism, but also with anti-Semitism. Marchers displayed swastikas on banners and shouted slogans like “blood and soil,” a phrase drawn from Nazi ideology. “This city is run by Jewish communists and criminal niggers,” one demonstrator told Vice News’ Elspeth Reeve during their march. As Jews prayed at a local synagogue, Congregation Beth Israel, men dressed in fatigues carrying semi-automatic rifles stood across the street, according to the temple’s president. Nazi websites posted a call to burn their building. As a precautionary measure, congregants had removed their Torah scrolls and exited through the back of the building when they were done praying.

The nation’s current post-truth moment is the ultimate expression of mind-sets that have made America exceptional throughout its history.

When did America become untethered from reality?

I first noticed our national lurch toward fantasy in 2004, after President George W. Bush’s political mastermind, Karl Rove, came up with the remarkable phrase reality-based community. People in “the reality-based community,” he told a reporter, “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality … That’s not the way the world really works anymore.” A year later, The Colbert Report went on the air. In the first few minutes of the first episode, Stephen Colbert, playing his right-wing-populist commentator character, performed a feature called “The Word.” His first selection: truthiness. “Now, I’m sure some of the ‘word police,’ the ‘wordinistas’ over at Webster’s, are gonna say, ‘Hey, that’s not a word!’ Well, anybody who knows me knows that I’m no fan of dictionaries or reference books.

If the president is concerned about violence on the left, he can start by fighting the white supremacist movements whose growth has fueled its rise.

In his Tuesday press conference, Donald Trump talked at length about what he called “the alt left.” White supremacists, he claimed, weren’t the only people in Charlottesville last weekend that deserved condemnation. “You had a group on the other side that was also very violent,” he declared. “Nobody wants to say that.”

I can say with great confidence that Trump’s final sentence is untrue. I can do so because the September issue of TheAtlantic contains an essay of mine entitled “The Rise of the Violent Left,” which discusses the very phenomenon that Trump claims “nobody wants” to discuss. Trump is right that, in Charlottesville and beyond, the violence of some leftist activists constitutes a real problem. Where he’s wrong is in suggesting that it’s a problem in any way comparable to white supremacism.